This site is closed to new comments and posts.

Notice: This site uses cookies to function.
If you are not comfortable with cookies then please don't browse this website.

Capitalism: A Love Story - Page 4 — Brooklynian

Capitalism: A Love Story

124

Comments

  • pokersloper
    pokersloper
    mr. met wrote:
    Fahrenheit 9/11
    most people agree that we went over there under false pretenses and that we need to get the fuck out of there. that was what the overall message of the film was.
    Michael Moore is called a liar by both the right and the left and that's the best you got?
  • mr. met
    mr. met
    Michael Moore is called a liar by both the right and the left and that's the best you got?
    i never denied that Moore distorts the truth (LIES) in parts of his movies.

    i was speaking to the overall message of 9/11. do you disagree?
  • mr. met
    mr. met
    go through the the causes he has promoted:

    1. gun control
    2. get out of iraq
    3. health care
    4. wild ways on wall street

    WHAT A MANIAC!
  • pokersloper
    pokersloper
    mr. met wrote:
    Michael Moore is called a liar by both the right and the left and that's the best you got?
    i never denied that Moore distorts the truth (LIES) in parts of his movies.

    i was speaking to the overall message of 9/11. do you disagree?
    Well, I can hardly "agree" with you until you actually say something. What does false pretenses mean? Lay it out and I can tell you if I agree or not.

    I certainly agree that the same media that has refused to be critical of Obama is the same media that gave Bush a free ride.

    However, I fully support the war in Iraq from a human rights and national security perspective. Bush - very poor war leader, but I support taking out a very bad government.
  • pokersloper
    pokersloper
    mr. met wrote: go through the the causes he has promoted:

    1. gun control
    2. get out of iraq
    3. health care
    4. wild ways on wall street

    WHAT A MANIAC!
    Moore is a professional liar, whether or not you like his politics.
  • mr. met
    mr. met
    What does false pretenses mean? Lay it out and I can tell you if I agree or not.
    oh god
    I certainly agree that the same media that has refused to be critical of Obama is the same media that gave Bush a free ride.
    what?
    However, I fully support the war in Iraq from a human rights and national security perspective. Bush - very poor war leader, but I support taking out a very bad government.
    jesus christ. iraq did not threaten our national security. i think that's an established FACT by now.

    so you want to take out all bad governments, or what? which ones?
  • mr. met
    mr. met
    Moore is a professional liar, whether or not you like his politics.
    nevermind. nuance is clearly not your specialty.
  • pokersloper
    pokersloper
    mr. met wrote:
    What does false pretenses mean? Lay it out and I can tell you if I agree or not.
    oh god
    I certainly agree that the same media that has refused to be critical of Obama is the same media that gave Bush a free ride.
    what?
    However, I fully support the war in Iraq from a human rights and national security perspective. Bush - very poor war leader, but I support taking out a very bad government.
    jesus christ. iraq did not threaten our national security. i think that's an established FACT by now.

    so you want to take out all bad governments, or what? which ones?
    image
  • pokersloper
    pokersloper
    mr. met wrote:
    Moore is a professional liar, whether or not you like his politics.
    nevermind. nuance is clearly not your specialty.
    http://www.slate.com/id/2102723

    nuance, take your time, read slowly.
  • mr. met
    mr. met
    keep dodging questions that make you look silly
  • boygabriel
    boygabriel
    pokersloper wrote: However, I fully support the war in Iraq from a human rights and national security perspective. Bush - very poor war leader, but I support taking out a very bad government.
    * blinks *
  • mr. met
    mr. met
    nuance, take your time, read slowly.
    read this very carefully, ok?

    i never said that Moore does not distort the truth in his films. never.

    i said that he fights for good causes. you refuse to comment on this. i'm not sure why.
  • pokersloper
    pokersloper
    mr. met wrote:
    nuance, take your time, read slowly.
    read this very carefully, ok?

    i never said that Moore does not distort the truth in his films. never.

    i said that he fights for good causes. you refuse to comment on this. i'm not sure why.
    Lots of people fight for good causes, from the left to the right, so what?
  • carnivore
    carnivore
    pokersloper wrote: Lots of people fight for good causes, from the left to the right, so what?
    He fights for those good causes with his movies.
  • pokersloper
    pokersloper
    Carnivore wrote: [quote=pokersloper]Lots of people fight for good causes, from the left to the right, so what?
    He fights for those good causes with his movies.

    And those movies are filled with lies and are patronizing to the left, right and everyone in the middle. I am sure Michael Moore and I agree on some issues, disagree on others, but when Slate (one of the best lefty sites) and the Weekly Standard (one of the best righty sites) can agree that Moore is a liar, well, it is time to consider that his product is crap.

    Moore's lies suggest that his causes are weak. His lies only backfire.
  • mr. met
    mr. met
    Moore's lies suggest that his causes are weak.
    no no no.

    this is what i was talking about when i said "nuance."
  • pokersloper
    pokersloper
    mr. met wrote:
    Moore's lies suggest that his causes are weak.
    no no no.

    this is what i was talking about when i said "nuance."
    Yeah, I guess there is not much else you can say when you throw your support behind a liberal filmmaker who lies so much that even liberals disavow him.

    I am sure somewhere in Iowa there is someone saying, "Limbaugh may lie, but he is our liar." So funny.
  • pokersloper
    pokersloper
    Boygabriel wrote: [quote=pokersloper]However, I fully support the war in Iraq from a human rights and national security perspective. Bush - very poor war leader, but I support taking out a very bad government.
    * blinks *

    yawns
  • cool the kid
    cool the kid
    mr. met wrote:
    nuance, take your time, read slowly.
    read this very carefully, ok?

    i never said that Moore does not distort the truth in his films. never.

    i said that he fights for good causes. you refuse to comment on this. i'm not sure why.
    Devil's in the details bro

    If u lie and cheat to achieve some noble goal against evil ur no better than the what ur fighting against. Bush wanted to protect America's interest and safeties, but in doing so he cost thousands of American, Iraqi and Afghan lives, and u look to villify him at every given opportunity. But if Obama looks to plunge the country into unprecedented levels of debt, or Michael Moore twists facts and lies in what is supposed to be a respectable documentary, it's OK because their ideals align with yours. Like I said before, the frothing young NY left is no better than the right they and the MSM villify.
  • vidro3
    vidro3
    moore uses lies to tell the truth
  • pokersloper
    pokersloper
    vidro3 wrote: moore uses lies to tell the truth
    Bush used lies to tell the truth. Going into Iraq was the right thing to do.

    I can just imagine the response, "But Moore is on our team, Bush is bad." So funny.
  • mr. met
    mr. met
    Bush wanted to protect America's interest and safeties, but in doing so he cost thousands of American, Iraqi and Afghan lives, and u look to villify him at every given opportunity.
    i haven't written one word about Bush. what are you talking about?
  • boygabriel
    boygabriel
    I split off the Iraq stuff to this post:


    http://www.brooklynian.com/forums/viewtopic.php?t=53039
  • mr. met
    mr. met
    via gawker.com
    Slovenly documentarian Michael Moore has a pretty good idea about why America's newspaper industry is in the toilet! 1) Greed; 2) Americans are dumb; 3) Republicans.

    Moore had a press conference this morning about his upcoming movie I Hate Capitalism. He went off on a rant about the newspaper industry that is both surprisingly insightful, and unsurprisingly rooted in a Chomskyite capitalist critique! His remarks were transcribed in full by the National Post, so all are [sic]. His main points:

    1. In Europe, papers get more revenue from circulation than from ads, so they have an incentive to put out a quality news product. Here, newspapers are ad-supported, and they've cut their content down to shit. Then he quotes David Simon, as is the law in such an argument.

    2. "We live in a nation of 40 million functional illiterates: that's 40 million adults who cannot read and write above a fourth grade or fifth grade level. We have another probably 40 million adults who can read and write above a fourth grade level but don't have the comprehension beyond that very much. So if you have literally that many tens of millions of adults who either can't read and write above a fourth and fifth grade level or can't comprehend what they do read, you've created a nation of people who are not going to be reading the newspapers." No matter how hard they try, newspapers will never be able to become as dumb as Americans. It's a fact!

    3. Republicans hate the Department of Education and thereby contribute to this widespread American illiteracy; nevertheless, Moore says, "In the 17 elections between 1940 and 2004, the majority of American newspapers endorsed the Republican candidate for President 14 of the 17 elections." Vote Republican and die, newspapers.
  • pokersloper
    pokersloper
    mr. met wrote: via gawker.com
    Slovenly documentarian Michael Moore has a pretty good idea about why America's newspaper industry is in the toilet! 1) Greed; 2) Americans are dumb; 3) Republicans.

    Moore had a press conference this morning about his upcoming movie I Hate Capitalism. He went off on a rant about the newspaper industry that is both surprisingly insightful, and unsurprisingly rooted in a Chomskyite capitalist critique! His remarks were transcribed in full by the National Post, so all are [sic]. His main points:

    1. In Europe, papers get more revenue from circulation than from ads, so they have an incentive to put out a quality news product. Here, newspapers are ad-supported, and they've cut their content down to shit. Then he quotes David Simon, as is the law in such an argument.

    2. "We live in a nation of 40 million functional illiterates: that's 40 million adults who cannot read and write above a fourth grade or fifth grade level. We have another probably 40 million adults who can read and write above a fourth grade level but don't have the comprehension beyond that very much. So if you have literally that many tens of millions of adults who either can't read and write above a fourth and fifth grade level or can't comprehend what they do read, you've created a nation of people who are not going to be reading the newspapers." No matter how hard they try, newspapers will never be able to become as dumb as Americans. It's a fact!

    3. Republicans hate the Department of Education and thereby contribute to this widespread American illiteracy; nevertheless, Moore says, "In the 17 elections between 1940 and 2004, the majority of American newspapers endorsed the Republican candidate for President 14 of the 17 elections." Vote Republican and die, newspapers.
    I have a pretty good idea why Michael Moore makes bad movies - he lies. Liberals say he lies, conservatives say he lies. Rooted in Chomsky, that is funny. Moore and Chomsky, the Limabaugh of the left.
  • mr. met
    mr. met
    do you just disagree with the 3rd point of Moore's speech?
  • pokersloper
    pokersloper
    mr. met wrote: do you just disagree with the 3rd point of Moore's speech?
    Perhaps if Democrats like President Obama sent his children to public school, the DC schools wouldn't be the worst in the nation. President Obama turns his back on the schools in his own backyard, as do many Republicans. Blaming one party for good schools, bad schools, good education policies, and bad education policies suggests to me that you really are not informed about the issues. Saying that Republicans or Democrats hate the DOE makes no sense. Education and politics surrounding education and unions are huge issues, Michael Moore sound bites or press releases don’t solve issues and don’t further the conversation.
  • mr. met
    mr. met
    Saying that Republicans or Democrats hate the DOE makes no sense. Education and politics surrounding education and unions are huge issues, Michael Moore sound bites or press releases don’t solve issues and don’t further the conversation.
    for what it's worth, that was a summary of what Moore said; not the actual speech itself. he went into more detail in the actual speech.

    i think Moore is suggesting that, historically, Republicans have cut educational funding more times than not. i do not know if that is true.
  • eggcream
    eggcream
    mr. met wrote: do you just disagree with the 3rd point of Moore's speech?
    Yep, get the unions of of the schools and the majority of the problems will be solved. Hell, get the unions out of every industry.

    Yesterday the head of the SEIU, Stern, spoke to Liberal Fox host Chris Wallace and actually had the b*lls to say if not for our health care system his daughter, who died years ago and would have turned 21 this month, would still be alive. Nice, use your dead daughter for your propaganda.
  • mr. met
    mr. met
    Hell, get the unions out of every industry.
    eek
Sign In or Register to comment.

Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!

Sign In

Categories